Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
I'd expect the race to tighten considerably

I'd expect that after all the noise has gone down that almost nothing has changed. I don't think that anyone is changing their vote based on the debates.

I can see Romney getting a couple points for about a week or so.

Pretty good debate, though Lehrer did get run over.

I don't think you can say either man won it in a real debate style; but Romney will benefit more from this one.

Especially after last election, everyone's expectations of Obama were high, and he missed or deliberately passed on some juicy opportunities. Mitt's comment on needing a better accountant was leading with the chin for a comment in taxes, paying fair share, tax break for millionaires like himself and Trump, anything like that. Obama didn't mention the 47% stuff either. It really looked like he was trying for the high road, but I think the audience needs a little more red meat and a little more fight.

Romney has an established reputation for stiffness, especially after the Primaries, so if he conducted himself better than he did in the Primaries he'd definitely make himself look better. Which he did. He seemed more relaxed and natural overall, but still got aggressive in some of his language and arguments. He also gets a bump just for appearing on the same stage as the President as an equal. So this will certainly help him. He also got the last word and went fairly aggressive in his closing statements, knowing that Obama wouldn't have the chance to call him on his more sweeping or misleading comments there.

Overall definitely an improvement in his position. I'll look forward to Biden/Ryan too, but not as much as I will to Romney/Obama II. I look forward to seeing how Obama adjusts now that he's got a better sense of what Romney's bringing to the stage.

I am ready for Steward/O'Reilly

 Seaward wrote:
CNN's instant polling results indicate the majority believe Romney pretty well crushed Obama in this one.

I'd expect the race to tighten considerably (if it's not already absurdly tight; using 2008 voting models is a little ridiculous).

Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?

Meanwhile, there's been little to no use of prior turn out models for about a month now. The only major firm still using it is Rasmussen, I believe, and they're rather ludicrously using the 2010 turnouts. Most firms have switched to turnout models based on direct questions of responders (did you vote last election etc). This show Obama with a lead of about 4%, and trending higher.

The debates might change that, something else might change that. But pretending Obama isn't holding a solid lead is inventing your own reality.

I think I'll sit this vote out. I haven't seen anything that makes me happy and giddy on either side.

Sitting out is better than casting a meaningless vote just because the right is available to me, y'know?

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I can say this without being biased in any way towards any candidate: Obama looked shameful.

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. My presidential voting record goes Bush - Kerry - Obama. The Republicans know better than to call me.

Meanwhile, there's been little to no use of prior turn out models for about a month now. The only major firm still using it is Rasmussen, I believe, and they're rather ludicrously using the 2010 turnouts. Most firms have switched to turnout models based on direct questions of responders (did you vote last election etc). This show Obama with a lead of about 4%, and trending higher.

No, they're still using ludicrously optimistic D/R/I splits.

The debates might change that, something else might change that. But pretending Obama isn't holding a solid lead is inventing your own reality.

We'll see, I suppose.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. My presidential voting record goes Bush - Kerry - Obama. The Republicans know better than to call me.

Meanwhile, there's been little to no use of prior turn out models for about a month now. The only major firm still using it is Rasmussen, I believe, and they're rather ludicrously using the 2010 turnouts. Most firms have switched to turnout models based on direct questions of responders (did you vote last election etc). This show Obama with a lead of about 4%, and trending higher.

No, they're still using ludicrously optimistic D/R/I splits.

The debates might change that, something else might change that. But pretending Obama isn't holding a solid lead is inventing your own reality.

We'll see, I suppose.

Always amazed at how the people making random phonecalls know just how to call the right ratio of D/R/I to get the favorable polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
CNN's instant polling results indicate the majority believe Romney pretty well crushed Obama in this one.

I'd expect the race to tighten considerably (if it's not already absurdly tight; using 2008 voting models is a little ridiculous).

Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?

Indeed. Even the [sarcasm]noted conservative news bastion The L.A. Times is peddling this Republican propaganda[/sarcasm]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-presidential-debate-lackluster-obama-stumbles-20121003,0,665943.story

Latest poll results: 100% of media owners were going to call it a Romney victory unless Romney utterly failed, just for the sake of keeping the race "interesting".

 AustonT wrote:
They need to go back to cutting the mics off when thier time is up.

Don't the audio crews connect switches to each coaxs leadin' to mics?

Betting markets have Obama moving from about 80% to win into the low 70s, on the back of this debate.

 Seaward wrote:
I wouldn't know. My presidential voting record goes Bush - Kerry - Obama. The Republicans know better than to call me.

Uh, it doesn't work by having Romney ring up every single person somewhat favourable to him. Its about pundits going on air and selling whatever it is the campaign wants them to sell that particular week. The true believers here it, and they repeat, and it works its way down the line.

You may not be a true believer, but you somehow got told that surveys were using 2008 splits (so don't lose enthusiasm).

No, they're still using ludicrously optimistic D/R/I splits.

You're. Just. Wrong.

They're using splits based on who is likely to vote, based on past voting behaviour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Indeed. Even the [sarcasm]noted conservative news bastion The L.A. Times is peddling this Republican propaganda[/sarcasm]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-presidential-debate-lackluster-obama-stumbles-20121003,0,665943.story

Ah, maybe go back and read through the thread again. The Republican peddled myth is over the claim that Obama's present lead in the polls is due to using dodgy likely voter numbers. Your article is over who won the debate, which is something I'm not debating - I haven't even seen the whole of the debate, so I can hardly call a winner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Latest poll results: 100% of media owners were going to call it a Romney victory unless Romney utterly failed, just for the sake of keeping the race "interesting".

To be fair, non-partisan polling immediately after the results showed people giving the result to Romney by a very strong margin.

 sebster wrote:

You're. Just. Wrong.

They're using splits based on who is likely to vote, based on past voting behaviour.

Yes. Including 2008 voting behavior, which saw turnout we are simply not going to see again anytime soon.

As for "losing hope," I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, so I'm not particularly hopeful either way.

Okay so what is the truth about the $5 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut Comment? Where is this number derived?

Plus has Mitt Romney published his Tax returns? (Talking about sacking his accountant?) We already know he doesn't care about the bottom 47%? Was he challenged about this? Obama could have buried him, instead he let him off easy.

I have a real problem with the US Media and people in general getting at Cold hard facts. As a long time listener of BBC Radio 4, I am used to having factual well written programmes by professional Journalists (admittedly the BBC is slightly leftward leaning but you can take that into account). I struggle to follow where the line of truth is or even facts? Therefore how can people make an informed decision on who to vote for?

Everything you hear is bent and distorted.

It's just a popularity debate, because without facts how can you make a good decision?

 sebster wrote:
I've never been able to figure out how that stuff matters.

It doesn't, not statistically anyway. Over time debates have no significant relevance with respect to electoral results, or even generic candidate approval. The main reason being that no one watches them aside from people who have already decided, and a contingent of political junkies. The Nielsen HHS% has, however, gone up lately.

Hell, I don't even watch them. I might read the transcript, but most likely I won't unless someone else starts making noise about it.

 Seaward wrote:
Yes. Including 2008 voting behavior, which saw turnout we are simply not going to see again anytime soon.

It doesn't mean purely 2008. And there's a range of other questions as well.

feth. Just go read about it. Learn. Don't just sit here hitting reply time after time trying to argue your way out of knowing something new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mwnciboo wrote:
It's just a popularity debate, because without facts how can you make a good decision?

The idea is that for each figure that you feel is important, you go out and read about what fact checkers have to say about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
It doesn't, not statistically anyway. Over time debates have no significant relevance with respect to electoral results, or even generic candidate approval. The main reason being that no one watches them aside from people who have already decided, and a contingent of political junkies. The Nielsen HHS% has, however, gone up lately.

Hell, I don't even watch them. I might read the transcript, but most likely I won't unless someone else starts making noise about it.

Fair point, but I meant in terms to policy. It just seems like if one guy is sitting there talking about sacrificing first born children, and the other guy says 'umm, that's a bad idea because, umm, it's murder' that a lot of people walk away saying 'gee that second was weak because he said umm a lot'.

I don't know if maybe a lot of the detail goes over people's heads so they just go with whoever sounds more confident and leaderly.


On your point more specifically, people are suggesting Obama's strategy here was to do no harm. Get through without giving up any quote that Romney can use in the next few weeks. I'm not sure that is so great a strategy to be honest, as Romney himself proved when he tried to play it safe with his own lead during the primary.

 Seaward wrote:

Yes. Including 2008 voting behavior, which saw turnout we are simply not going to see again anytime soon.

Regardless of whether 2008 turnout divisions are unrepeatable, refusing to account for them in any manner is foolish. You might weight them lowly, but you don't just discard them, particularly given how voter turnout in 2008 wasn't anomalous.

The real story is that only about 50% of voters presently identify with a party, according to ANES.

 sebster wrote:
To be fair, non-partisan polling immediately after the results showed people giving the result to Romney by a very strong margin.

Yeah, I'm talking about the media coverage of the debate. Unless the debate was such an obvious Romney failure that nobody could say "Romney won" with a straight face the coverage was going to be about how Romney did well and can expect to regain some poll numbers, no matter what Obama did. After all, which brings in more sales/advertising money:

"Romney gaining on Obama after solid debate performance, you'd better keep watching us 24/7 so you don't miss a moment of this REALLY EXCITING ELECTION!"

or

"Romney meets low expectations, still a horrible candidate and still going to lose the election, seriously we can't believe there are people who actually think voting for him is a good idea."

There's a limit to how many times you can run a story about "BREAKING NEWS: ROMNEY CAMPAIGN NOT A JOKE, WE ACTUALLY FOUND SOMEONE DUMB ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HIM" before everyone gets bored of the whole thing and stops watching. The media needs to portray it as a close race right up until election day.

 Seaward wrote:
As for "losing hope," I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, so I'm not particularly hopeful either way.

Seriously, why? This seems like an election where if you're even halfway informed about the issues it's pretty easy to figure out which candidate and party best represent your position. What are you still undecided on?

 Peregrine wrote:

Seriously, why? This seems like an election where if you're even halfway informed about the issues it's pretty easy to figure out which candidate and party best represent your position.

Not really, no. I don't like voting for unelectable candidates, and I'm a libertarian.

 Peregrine wrote:
Seriously, why? This seems like an election where if you're even halfway informed about the issues it's pretty easy to figure out which candidate and party best represent your position. What are you still undecided on?

For me part of the problem is that there are so many positions and only two candidates to have an opinion on all of them. So if you are even remotely moderate you are going to have to figure out which areas you are willing to compromise on.

 Seaward wrote:
Not really, no. I don't like voting for unelectable candidates, and I'm a libertarian.

Oh. I'm sorry. Perhaps you should change your position to a political system that actually works?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
For me part of the problem is that there are so many positions and only two candidates to have an opinion on all of them. So if you are even remotely moderate you are going to have to figure out which areas you are willing to compromise on.

See, I don't understand how that can be true when you have a center-right candidate running against a far-right candidate (sadly the center-left and far-left options are kind of lacking). If you're a moderate you obviously vote for Obama, since he's the only one taking moderate positions. Well, currently at least, I suppose if it was Obama vs. Governor Romney it might be a tough call for someone in the middle of the two, but 2012 Romney? Not really.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh. I'm sorry. Perhaps you should change your position to a political system that actually works?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Ron Paul's not a libertarian, for the record.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

See, I don't understand how that can be true when you have a center-right candidate running against a far-right candidate (sadly the center-left and far-left options are kind of lacking). If you're a moderate you obviously vote for Obama, since he's the only one taking moderate positions. Well, currently at least, I suppose if it was Obama vs. Governor Romney it might be a tough call for someone in the middle of the two, but 2012 Romney? Not really.

Obama's not center-right, and Romney's not far-right. You can pretend like you're European all you like, I suppose, but it's useful to use political terms as they operate in this country.

 Seaward wrote:
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Ron Paul's not a libertarian, for the record.

It means exactly what I said: libertarianism is a broken political system. It's nice if you're rich and love Ayn Rand*, but libertarianism's ideology would be horrible for a country as a whole. So, you have two options:

The republican party will give you the economic half of libertarianism, but won't give you the social issues. IOW, all of the bad parts but none of the good.

The democratic party will give you some of the social issues, but not the economic ones. IOW, some of the good but none of the bad.

I think the choice is pretty obvious: vote democrat, and give up on your broken ideology.


*Or if you're one of those people who thinks that rebelling against the two-party system by calling yourself a libertarian is cool, but don't actually know what the libertarian party platform is.

 Peregrine wrote:
Obama's not center-right, and Romney's not far-right. You can pretend like you're European all you like, I suppose, but it's useful to use political terms as they operate in this country.

Except it's not just in European terms. People in the US who are actually on the left of the scale don't like Obama, he's accomplished almost nothing of a real left-wing agenda while pursuing quite a few right-wing policies. At best Obama is a centrist who worships "bipartisanship" too much to hold the center. We only keep voting for him (and other democrats) because the alternative is even worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

*Or if you're one of those people who thinks that rebelling against the two-party system by calling yourself a libertarian is cool, but don't actually know what the libertarian party platform is.

Wait, you think a political libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party are necessarily the same thing?

 Seaward wrote:
Wait, you think a political libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party are necessarily the same thing?

Of course not. The Libertarian Party would never be an accurate representation of libertarian beliefs....

Since we've run into the inevitable "no two libertarians agree on what 'libertarianism' consists of" problem, how about you explain what your positions on the major issues are?

 Peregrine wrote:

Since we've run into the inevitable "no two libertarians agree on what 'libertarianism' consists of" problem, how about you explain what your positions on the major issues are?

Why does it matter? Neither Obama nor Romney encompasses them.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
You're. Just. Wrong.

They're using splits based on who is likely to vote, based on past voting behaviour.

Yes. Including 2008 voting behavior, which saw turnout we are simply not going to see again anytime soon..

Likewise for 2010. Statistical models of past voting behavior still have to reference both of them, because they both happened.

Here is what I hear aroudn the office this morning:

"Obama was Obama, but Romney did incredibly well."

I didn't watch, so I don't have an opinion yet.

 sebster wrote:

On your point more specifically, people are suggesting Obama's strategy here was to do no harm. Get through without giving up any quote that Romney can use in the next few weeks. I'm not sure that is so great a strategy to be honest, as Romney himself proved when he tried to play it safe with his own lead during the primary.

There's a difference. Romney is down in polls and Obama has incumbent advantage, there is a natural incentive, in this case, to bait the opponent. This has been effective in the sense that Romney has been forced to outline an economic plan.

There is a ton of campaign fodder in Romney's responses that wasn't present before, but very little in Obama's. Romney's trickle-down quote is, to be frank, fething gold.

"So, you don't believe that trickle-down policies are effective?"

So, are you saying Romney had to clarify his message more than he has before, and this has left him open to a bludgeoning by the President?